Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1956-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
This paper investigates the distributional implications for eight population groups of using six different instruments to measure wellbeing and to prioritise access to health services. Specifically, it examines the importance of different physical and psycho-social problems for the scores obtained using each instrument and whether scores differ because of differences in the concept measured by the instrument or because of the instrument’s construction.
Patients with seven chronic conditions and a sample of the ‘healthy’ public were administered six instruments: two utility instruments; two self-rating scales; a subjective wellbeing instrument and the ICECAP measure of capability. Scores were regressed upon the subscales of the SF-36 and the AQoL-8D. Each instrument’s ‘problem mix’ was measured by the numerical importance of the subscales for the instrument’s score and compared with the problem mix of patients constructed from all of the instruments.
The apparent importance of different problems varied significantly with the instrument used to assess welfare but not with the chronic conditions. The correspondence between an instrument’s problem mix and the patients’ problem mix was highly variable.
Different instruments give prominence to different physical and psycho-social problems and consequently favour different groups of patients. Budgetary decisions which appear to be based on efficiency criteria such as the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) conceal distributive effects attributable to the instrument used in the analysis. The effects are additional to the ethical questions considered in making an equity–efficiency trade-off as they arise from the measurement of efficiency.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 854 KB)11136_2018_1956_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2009). Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/en/index.htm.
Brazier, J., Jones, N., & Kind, P. (1993). Testing the validity of the Euroqol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 2(3), 169–180. CrossRef
McDaid, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2014). Wellbeing: A complete reference guide, volume V, economics of wellbeing. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Harter, J. K., & Gurley, V. F. (2008). Measuring health in the United States. APS Obs, 21, 23–26.
Seaford, C. (2011). Policy: time to legislate for the good life. Nature, 477, 532–533. CrossRef
Gudex, C. (1991, October). Are we lacking a dimensionof energy in the EuroQol instrument. Paper presented at the EuroQol Conference, Lund.
de Vries, M., Emons, W. H. M., Plantinga, A., Pietersma, S., van den Hout, W. B., Stiggelbout, A. M., & Elske van den Akker-van Marle, M. (2016). Comprehensively measuring health-related subjective well-being: Dimensionality analysis for improved outcome assessment in health economics. Value in Health, 19(2), 167–175. CrossRef
Fryback, D. G. (1998). Appendix C Methodological issues in measuring health status and health-related quality of life for population health measures: A brief overview of the “HALY” family of measures. In M. J. Field & M. R. Gold (Eds.), Summarizing population health: Directions for the development and application of population metrics (pp. 39–57). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Greco, G., Lorgelly, P., & Yamabhai, I. (2016). Outcomes in economic evaluations of public health interventions in low- and middle-income countries: Health, capabilities and subjective wellbeing. Health Economics, 25(S1), 83–94. CrossRef
Matza, L. S., Boye, K. S., Stewart, K. D., Curtis, B. H., Reaney, M., & Landrian, A. S. (2015). A qualitative examination of the content validity of the EQ-5D-5L in patients with type 2 diabetes. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13, 192.
Stevens, K. (2015). How well do the generic multi-attribute utility instruments incorporate patient and public views into their descriptive systems? The Patient, 9(1), 5–13. CrossRef
Richardson, J., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2015). Comparing and explaining differences in the content, sensitivity and magnitude of incremental utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB and AQoL-8D multi attribute utility instruments’. Medical Decision Making, 35(3), 276–291. CrossRef
Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. London: Allen Lane.
Entwistle, V. A., & Watt, I. S. (2013). Treating patients as persons: A capabilities approach to support delivery of person-centered care. American Journal of Bioethics, 13(8), 29–39. CrossRef
Law, I., & Widdows, H. (2008). Conceptualising health: Insights from the Capability appraoch. Health Care Analysis, 16(4), 303–314. CrossRef
Coast, J., Smith, R., & Lorgelly, P. (2008). Should the capability approach be applied in health economics? Health Economics, 17(6), 667–670. CrossRef
Ruger, J. P. (2010). Health capability: Concetualization and operationalization. American Journal of Public Health, 100(1), 41–49. CrossRef
Mitchell, P., Al-Janabi, H., Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., & Coast, J. (2015). The relative impacts of disease on health status and capability wellbeing: A multi-country study. PLoS ONE, 10(12), e0143590 doi: 0143510.0141371/journal.pone.0143590. CrossRef
Hopper, K. (2007). Rethinking social recovery in schizophrenia: What a capabilities approach might offer. Social Science & Medicine, 65(5), 868–879. CrossRef
Kahneman, D., Wakker, P., & Sarin, R. (1997). Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 375–405. CrossRef
Dolan, P. (2008). Developing methods that really do value the “Q” in the QALY. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 3, 69–77.
Dolan, P., & Kahneman, D. (2008). Interpretations of utility and their implications for the valuation of health. Economic Journal, 118(525), 215–234. CrossRef
Dolan, P. (2011). Using happiness to value health. London: Office of Health Economics, http://www.ohe.org/object/display.cfm?serv=2&id=98 [Accessed 24 January 2014].
Dolan, P., & Metcalfe, R. (2012). Valuing health: A brief report on subjective well-being versus preferences (pp. 578–582). Jul/Aug: Medical Decision Making.
Ng, Y.-K. (1997). A case for happiness, cardinalism and interpersonal comparability. The Economic Journal, 107, 1848–1858. CrossRef
Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Well-being: the foundations of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Frey, B., & Stutzer, A. (2000). Maximizing happiness? German Economic Review, 1(2), 145–167. CrossRef
Layard, R., & O’Donnell, G. (2015). How to make policy when happiness is the goal. In J. Helliwell, R. Layard & J. Sachs (Eds.), World Happiness Report. New York: New York Sustainable Development Solutions Network. http://worldhappiness.report/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/04/WHR15.pdf [Accessed 29 November 2017].
von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economical behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Richardson, J., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2012). Cross-national comparison of twelve quality of life instruments: MIC Paper 1: Background, questions, instruments, Research Paper 76. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.
Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A., & Maxwell, A. (2012). Cross-national comparison of twelve quality of life instruments, Research Papers 78, 80–83, 85. MIC Report: 2: Australia; 3: UK; 4: USA; 5: Canada; 6: Norway; 7: Germany. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.
van Hout, B., Janssen, M. F., Feng, Y., Kohlmann, T., Busschbach, J., Golicki, D., Lloyd, A., Scalone, L., Kind, P., & Pickard, S. (2012). Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: Mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value in Health, 15, 708–715. CrossRef
Richardson, J., Elsworth, G., Iezzi, A., Khan, M. A., Mihalopoulos, C., Schweitzer, I., & Herrman, H. (2011). Increasing the sensitivity of the AQoL inventory for evaluation of interventions affecting mental health, Research Paper 61. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.
Richardson, J., Sinha, K., Iezzi, A., & Khan, M. A. (2014). Modelling utility weights for the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) 8D. Quality of Life Research, 23(8), 2395–2404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-11014-10686-11138. CrossRef
Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., & Khan, M. A. (2014). The self time trade-off (TTO) instrument: Reliability and survey results. Research Paper 86. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.
Tinkler, L., & Hicks, S. (2011). Measuring subjective wellbeing: Office for national statistics. http://www.ons.gov.uk.
Al-Janabi, H., Flynn, T., & Coast, J. (2012). Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: The ICECAP-A. Quality of Life Research, 21, 167–176. CrossRef
Flynn, T. N., Huynh, E., Peters, T. J., Al-Janabi, H., Clemens, S., Moody, A., & Coast, J. (2015). Scoring the Icecap—A capability instrument. Estimation of a UK general population tariff. Health Economics, 24(3), 258–269. CrossRef
Ware, J., & Sherbourne, D. (1992). The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). I: Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473–483. CrossRef
Pindyck, R. S., & Rubinfield, D. L. (1985). Econometric models and economic forecasts. Signapore: McGraw Hill Book Company.
Richardson, J., Khan, M. A., Iezzi, A., & Maxwell, A. (2012). Cross-national comparison of twelve quality of life instruments, Research Papers 78, 80–83, 85. MIC Report: 2: Australia; 3: UK; 4: USA; 5: Canada; 6: Norway; 7: Germany. Melbourne: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/centres/che/che-publications.html [Accessed 25 January 2013].
- Variation in the apparent importance of health-related problems with the instrument used to measure patient welfare
Munir A. Khan
- Springer International Publishing